Bank Issued "No Gum"? Your Opinion Please.

I know I'll be slaughtered for asking this:) but, I wouldn't be asking if I didn't believe there could be a possibility, ever so rare, that this could be a bank issued "no gum" variety. There is color bleed through the back but no appearance of gum, from what I can see. I am humbly asking for opinions as to whether or not this stamp is a no gum or not. Even if it's not I like the stamp and that's what matters the most. Cheers and thank you for weighing in.

Jon, Tornado Alley,Alabama

Let the slaughter begin!
The stamp does not appear in the images supplied to have the very white paper of the special issue. The images seem to have a blue tint to them.

At very best, forum opinions are only useful for making the determination if you should spend money on a cert or not. (Say someone weighs in with the opinion that it might be genuine, would you then be convinced that it as legitimate based upon an opinion from someone who has not examined the stamp in hand?)

Lastly, say you came home today and saw some trees had been blown over in your back yard. It may be that a tornado came through and did it. Or it could be that aliens landed and their ship knocked them over. One is likely, one is not.
Don

flipacoin....
Are you asking is this the SPECIAL PRINTING variety?
or just a banknote with no gum?

This is NOT one of the Special Printings. It is a plain old ordinary 5-cent Garfield (Sc.#205-), which was at one point what we call today a "skip" and was soaked from the cover for re-use, or sale to collectors as an "unused" stamp. Sorry.

There are ~25 known with certs, and actual print run was probably no more than 400. The "official" sales figure of about 2500 is considered to be grossly over-stated.

Thank you gentlemen for shedding light on this stamp and for sharing your wisdom. @Kevin 504, Thank you for asking your question because I should have clarified that I was referring specifically to the Bank note "no gum". Thanks and best to you all, Jon

Kollectorkurt,

I'm interested how you can tell difference between a mint stamp no gum, and a used stamp (skip) previously soaked.
Is there something in the scans that makes you sure, especially on back???!

When I saw stamp I thought just ordinary mint no gum old stamp.

G

Please banish the term "mint no gum". Once a never hinged stamp is hinged or loses its gum it becomes "unused previously hinged" or "unused no gum". Note that the Scott US Specialized catalog uses the term "mint" only in connection with unused never hinged stamps with original gum. We should respect their choice of language.

In order to determine if the stamp was used with a light or removed cancel, careful examination with a 10 or 15 power loupe would be required. Any signs of dirt or unexplained variations in the color of the stamp should be a red flag. Ideally, such stamps should be examined with a multi-frequency light source like the Crime Scope at APS Expertizing or a video spectral comparator available at the Smithsonian or the other recognized expertizing committees. Without proper forensic analysis, one can never be 100% sure that a 19th Century stamp with no gum (or regummed) is actually unused.

Clark

Regarding the stamp in question, there are only three possible choices for Type-A56. Due to its color, #216 is eliminated. So it is either #205 or #205C. The regular issue was a workhorse, with three "normal" color varieties and many shades in between (I probably have close to a dozen). The true Special Printing is far rarer than Scott indicates. Since I have a better chance of being struck by lightning while holding a winning Power Ball ticket whilst on a romantic date with my favorite supermodel and with my wife's blessing, than this example being a #205C...

It is what it is - an unused example of #205 with a 2013 SCV of $80 (only have my eBook with me this weekend).

Link to nice example at Siegel's:
http://www.siegelauctions.com/dynam...2010,%202012

There are several others easily found online. All show both exceptional centering and print quality.

I agree with Clark... "mint no gum" does not exist. "Mint NGAI" is a completely different description applicable to a rather small number of US stamps.

G - You asked about what I saw on the back of the stamp that led me to call this a skip. There is some creasing and possibly a thin or scuff. This is evidence of having been soaked and stuck in a stockbook.

Jon - Good job on the side-lit photo.

So we are back to classifying stamp as "unused no gum". Sorry for saying "mint".

Kolkectorkurt must have saw something that indicated "used stamp" that was previously soaked off.
I was just wondering if there was a hint on the scan that indicates it was soaked off.

Thanks for answer kollector. I typed my reply at same time you provided answer

Thanks